> Eh, why is "Major" in quotes. Is that supposed to be ironic or something?

Probably because it is the wording of, and implies the opinion of, the US DoJ Antitrust Division; something that may not be identical with, and should in any case not be confused with the wordings and opinions of Dre.

A surprisingly clumsy construct in this instance, however your surmission is seemingly wrong. The quotes are the DoJ's. In this case, I suppose Dre should have used ""Major"" or \""Major"\" or '"Major"'. Something like that.

Part of that problem (and by no means not the only one) is that we compete for resources with other fairly busy sites. The Zope server doesn't seem able to respond in a timely manner when the load is 10 or above, although apache itself does fine.

I should try and bypass Medusa and see if I can get better performance there, but the problem may fix itself since I heard webcvs may be migrating to another box.

>>Troll Sweeper: "What money ? Did you give any ? I did not think so!"

>>Neil Stevens: "What money? The entrance fee every organization paid to get their logo on the kde league page, as detailed in the bylaws..."

Now I do not think I am the only one who noticed the context of the sentence, by what money, he did not mean that there was no money, he meant what money has the person complaining put into the League. Yet another straw man argument, from the master! Million straw men march! Ohhh! YEEEAAAH!

Now that the League has gotten into a political matter in one country, it had better start making very clear that it does not speak for KDE. KDE is a community built around people sharing software with each other. If the League begins to paint KDE with a political tint, it may do irreparable harm to the KDE community by driving people away, and making people stay away. (Note that by politicizing KDE, the League would achieve the opposite of its stated goals.)

Now that the League has stepped away from its stated purpose of helping KDE by attacking someone else, it had better start making very clear that money given to it may not be used for KDE advocacy. Otherwise that would be dishonest. And we don't want a dishonest body representing KDE to the world.

Now that the League has made clear it does not believe KDE is good enough, that the government has to go steal from someone else for KDE to thrive (although the current state of KDE makes that position obviously false), it has no business claiming to speak for KDE. Some of us feel KDE is doing fine, and can stand up on its own merits, and doesn't need an overbearing government punishing success in the marketplace.

As an immediate measure, I recommend that a link to the League be removed from www.kde.org, and hope that the League website change its look slightly, as to not mislead people into thinking it's a part of KDE.

The proposed settlement in the Microsoft case is a legal matter that may have consequences for KDE's legal position in the future and may influence our ability to further develop KDE.

I do not think that the KDE League takes a political position, it merily makes clear that the proposed settlement, which according to the existing laws in the U.S. should protect the public interest, is ineffective in protecting the interests of KDE from abuse by the defendant.

I understand that you do not approve of some of the existing laws in the U.S. and that you would like to see them not enforced but those are political issues that you should discuss with your political representative.

Oh, and I am doing my part to get the law changed. I intend to vote Libertarian this fall. I just don't need KDE League going behind my back and taking political positions in the name of "the developers" to make my job harder.

That is funny, I am a real libertarian. I do not want politicians going behind my back and taking politicial positions in the name of "the people" to make my life miserable.

Real libertarians are against all politicial authority. Real libertarians do not want a seat at the table of power, they want to knock that table over. You guys should call yourself Consitutionalists or Jeffersionists, or Randists.

I guess I should be flattered, that my words have enough impact with you that you feel compelled to reply to me repeatedly, even though you have little to say about the actual point I make - about the role the KDE League should play when communicating outside of the KDE Community.

I personally do not know how many people seem to think that they can be part of a *major* project (in any area of society) without becoming at least somewhat involved in politics. Politics is a pervasive force in every angle of daily life, and I believe that if more people would recognize and mobilize to properly direct this massive force we would be much better off that taking a "purist" stance wishing not to taint our activities with the stain of political involvement. Free software is a *highly* political movement. I support the KDE League's response 100%. Thank you Dre.

Please read the piece by Adreas, where you will read a disclaimer that the views in the document are those of the KDE League and not necessarily those of its members. You may also realize while reading it that this is not a political piece, but a rebuttal of the proposed settlement of a law suit.

The paper had nothing to do with KDE "not being good enough", but rather was all about ensuring that judgements that may adversly effect KDE's ability to showcase its ability "to stand up on its own merits" are not handed down without taking into consideration the perspective of those it will effect.

And if you are truly concerned about the quality of representation KDE gets, how about paying some attention to your typically melodramatic and conspiratorial posts/rants. I think the phrase is, "the rafter in your own eye".

I did read the piece. The piece makes claims that the "developers" need "protection," in direct conflict with the stated directive that the League not be involved with development.

And try reading what I wrote before replying to it. If Andreas Pour had sent that in as a KDE developer I wouldn't have a thing to say about it. It's only that the piece was sent in the name of the KDE League that provokes my reply. Unlike myself and freekde.org, the KDE League positions itself as a public representative of the KDE user and developer community.

the league is not a public representative, but rather a public promoter of kde. there is a huge difference, and this is covered fairly well in their FAQ. when the league speaks with their own voice w/regard to kde it is no different that what you do on freekde.org; which btw has a name that also certainly sounds representative of kde and is linked to from kde.org sites. in other words you are condemning someone for doing exactly what you do.

"To establish KDE as a desktop standard for PCs, workstations, and mobile devices, to promote software development for KDE and to promote the use of KDE by enterprises and individuals."

KDE League Objectives

To accomplish this mission, the objectives of the League are to:

sustain, provide and facilitate formal and informal education about the features, capabilities and other qualities of KDE;
encourage corporations, governments, enterprises and individuals to use KDE;
encourage corporations, governments, enterprises and individuals to develop for KDE;
sustain, provide and facilitate formal and informal education about development for KDE;
provide expertise, information, direction and position papers regarding KDE and its development and use;
foster communication and cooperation between and among KDE developers; and
foster communication and cooperation between KDE developers and the public through publications, articles, web sites, meetings, attendance at trade shows, press releases, interviews, promotional materials and committees.

How does participating in the public comment period of a US DOJ settlement further any of these objectives, or the mission the objectives support?

If I wanted to show that KDE is a thriving user and developer community, that KDE 2.2.2 and the soon to be here KDE 3 are great environments for many segements of the computer using population, that developing for KDE is a rewarding experience, and that basing ones business on KDE (either as a user or vendor) is a safe bet, the last thing I want to do is to imply that the future of KDE is in the control of Microsoft and the US government.

If the settlement is upheld despite public comment, should people not use KDE? The KDE League says that KDE needs protection.

> sustain, provide and facilitate formal and informal education
> about the features, capabilities and other qualities of KDE;

Well, it provides some of that, in the cover letter, which presents the court with something to look at it might not otherwise have considered. So if nothing else, it educates the court, which some may consider an exceptionally important audience, about KDE. In my opinion, this would be no different than Andreas meeting with representatives of the German Bundestag to discuss using KDE with them, something, though perhaps on some level "political", might do KDE a lot of good.

Whether it does these things, remains to be seen, but it is possible that if the court mentions KDE in its opinion, this will bring additional attention to KDE (such as media coverage).

> sustain, provide and facilitate formal and informal education
> about development for KDE;

The comments to talk about this, again mostly in the cover letter.

> provide expertise, information,
> direction and position papers regarding KDE and its development
> and use;

Hmm, this one seems to apply quite well. Provide expertise -- probably the court would not have learnd about KDE absent this comment. Information, it's there. Position papers - that's what the document is. And it all regards - both as the ultimate topic but also in examples throughout that I seemed to run across - development and use of KDE.

> foster communication and cooperation between and among KDE
> developers; and

Not applicable in this case, and apparently the opposite result has been achieved, as demonstrated by this thread, at least in part.

Well, again we have a "publication" and possibly a "promotional material", which is fostering communication between KDE developers and the public (it tells the public about KDE, and requests cooperation).

So, it seems within the guidelines you qouted to me (I did not check if that is correct). Not that this means it should have been sent in by the League, but I just don't see how it violates the mission statement. It might actually end up being a very effective promotional, educational and invitational paper.

I for one, though, hope it does not divide the KDE community. And I don't think it will, as it seems almost everyone, even if not agreeing with every word, feel that consideration by the district court of Open Source when reaching its decision is a good thing, and, looking at the other 46, it presents a unique, Open Source perspective which hopefully will be of value to the court.

"Libertarians"(the right ones at least) believe that government muscles in too much on corporations turf and hurts the profits of corporations. I think he objects to this more from the principle of a "free market." He thinks that this is saying KDE needs the government to protect it. In reality the reverse is true, KDE needs to make sure that Mircosoft does not buy enough lobbying, to use it unfairly against KDE. Given Microsoft's history, this is not something that should fall on incredulous ears.

There has never been a free market. The earliest European corporations, like the Dutch East India Company, would drag their countries into wars and colonizations for access to markets. The Ottomans invaded Arabia for a coffee monopoly, which they held for quite a while, until some Arabs smuggled coffee seeds into Europe. Recently the United States invaded Afghanistan on behalf of its oil companies and they are now well entrenched on the Caspian reserves. This has always been like this. Rich corporations have always been hard to distinguish from their governments. Does Mircosoft, bully the government through lobbying? Or does the government control Microsoft, through legislation? You cannot tell, they are seemingly one entity at times acting together and at others enemies.

I think he is hung up on an ideal that does not exist and is pissed off that KDE Leauge is messing up the vaunted "free market."

Oh please, ximian, not another rant about invading Afghanistan for the oil companies.
My country's government invaded on MY behalf. And I am against most of our current oil driven stance, I prefer not drilling in our refuges, and long (and vote for) more investment into energy sources such as Hydrogen cells. But in general I agree with miuch of what you write above and lean anywhere from Republican, Democrat, to Libertarian depending on the issue involved. Having a foothold near the Caspian reserves is just a pleasant sidenote to the Afghan military action but wasn't the main cause.

Anyway...

"provide expertise, information, direction and position papers regarding KDE and its development and use"

This seems to me what the KDE League did in this instance. And, as a happy KDE user and lover of freedom, I am glad that they took the time and effort to fight for my side rather then silently sit by while a behemoth corporation tries to buy their way out of sanctions and into a more controlling position with the help of government.

The mission of the League is to establish the K Desktop Environment ("KDE"), a network transparent contemporary desktop environment, as a desktop standard for PCs, workstations, ... To accomplish this mission, the objectives of the League are to:

[snip]
...
provide expertise, information, direction and position papers regarding KDE and its development and use;

===========================
A position paper submitted to the US DoJ falls within the mission of the League "to establish the K Desktop Environment ... as a desktop standard for [PCs and workstations]". Education of lawmakers about the "development and use" of KDE is a necessary part of doing business in the real world.

In a black and white world, it would be very easy for the KDE League to ignore that education can provide influence. Influence is about making or shifting opinions. The KDE League has a mandate to educate and education is not limited to other developers; it includes the general public and other opinion makers in society. If the KDE League cannot do these things as I interpret your comments, Neil, then it cannot fulfill its mandate to establish KDE as a desktop standard. To me, a standard must have critical mass and hence many users.

Good debate...I just disagree with the narrow interpretation of the KDE League's mandate.

Do not make justifications for Neil Stevens. The US DOJ asked for public comments, even from non-Americans and that is what they got, comments. It is good that the KDE League made a comment, let him crow and bitch all he wants about that. The KDE League did nothing wrong.

>>"Now that the League has gotten into a political matter in one country.."
>>"If the League begins to paint KDE with a political tint..."
>>"Note that by politicizing KDE..."

Relax. The KDE League shows no sign of becoming a political party or overly politicized. I do not know how you reached that conclusion, is it because they submitted a comment? That is absurd. Why should KDE not comment? So they do not punish success in the marketplace and violate some mythical "free market?"

>>"Now that the League has stepped away from its stated purpose of helping KDE by attacking someone else"

>>"Now that the League has made clear it does not believe KDE is good enough, that the government has to go steal from someone else for KDE to thrive..."

Let us make a straw men army.

>>"...doesn't need an overbearing government punishing success in the marketplace."

Damn KDE League punishing the fair and successful Microsoft! I think you should make more straw men arguments. When you make enough, invade France. Look Microsoft to a large extent is the government. The right wing Jewish lobby does not even have as many politicians on their payroll as Microsoft.

P.S. Is the plural of straw man argument, straw men arguments or straw man arguments? I think men should be plural as well.

I have been monitoring this thread started by Neil Stevens and from clues he has posted I think I solved the problem.

Hypothesis - Neil Stevens, a Libertarian (1), objects to KDE Leagues on the principal that it would be interfering(2) with the virgin sancitity of the "free market."(3)

Proof -

1. >>"I intend to vote Libertarian this fall."

2. >>"...doesn't need an overbearing government punishing success in the marketplace."

>>"Now that the League has stepped away from its stated purpose of helping KDE by attacking someone else"

>>"Now that the League has gotten into a political matter in one country.."

Damn KDE screwing up the Capitalist free market with their one comment.

3. One of the central positions of libertarians is that the state should move out of many of its roles and that big government is evil(note; only government with the adjective, big, appended is evil, not government in general), and that institutions of capital should take some of their roles over. They also oppose to intereference by government on the flow of capital. As you can see by how far Neil is willing to stretch his arguments(to the point of absurdness and absolute falsity, that is how freaking far), he is pretty passionate about this, and he does feel KDE is interfering with his iconized free market.

He has his panties in a bunch over an ideologicial issue most of us would not consider. Would you consider arguing that KDE submitting this comment is admitting they are inadequate?

According to the letter, the current measures proposed against Microsoft are not good enough and could in fact encourage Microsoft to extend its Monopoly, thus harming KDE.

Now, KDE is doing great and *can* stand up on its own merits. What it can't do is stand up while being crippled by Monopolistic actions. Now Microsoft might 'turn good' and not extend its hold on the market at the expence of taking a hit on possible profits. That is however, unlikely.

In the future Microsoft may start to tie in hardware to their software. It certainly makes sense from a business perspective. Microsoft might not even need to push it. Companies feeling the pinch from open source solutions would be interested in forcing this competition out. Let only 'trusted solutions' run on the new hardware. Broad commercial support would deter any remedial action by Government, so open source could be left out in the cold.

So, I think the kdeleague is justified in speaking out on this issue, since without acting now, in the future it might have to speak out more desperately but no one will be listening.

> Now that the League has gotten into a political matter
> in one country

No, for two reasons. A court case has nothing to do with politics. The U.S. is a collection of semi-autonomous states, and they are legally entitled to challenge a ruling that affects them.

Second, Microsoft is an international company. The outcome of this case will affect the O.S. marketplace the world over (even if it currently appears its effect will be to re-inforce the status quo).

> If the League begins to paint KDE with a political tint,
> it may do irreparable harm to the KDE community by driving
> people away, and making people stay away.

This is a danger, however most reasonably informed people in I.T. see Microsoft as an abusive monopoly that needs serious limitations. As mentioned above, I do'nt accept that this is a political manner (and if it's in just one country, why should it affect the majority of KDE users?), however as a promotional body the KDE League is always going to risk putting _someone's_ back up with what it says.

> Now that the League has stepped away from its stated purpose
> of helping KDE by attacking someone else

It hasn't "attacked" anyone. It's simply given a criticism of a ruling based on it's stated opinions of a company. I can't see Bill Gates going to bed in tears because of this.

> that money given to it may not be used for KDE advocacy

One, there was a helluva lot (perhaps even a little too much) advocacy of KDE in the introduction to the response. Second, by endeavouring to bring a level of equality to the marketplace it's aiding it's advocacy efforts - making it easier for people to make the choice.

> Now that the League has made clear it does not believe
> KDE is good enough

I wonder why I reply to these things at all... The whole point of this thing is that even if KDE is good enough, or even better (which is IMHO, excluding config tools), in the current marketplace, with Microsoft abusing it's monopoly, it will still fail to gain acceptance. The aim of the trial, and it's ultimate solution, is to enable products like Linux/KDE and Windows XP etc. to compete on their merits. Currently they can't do that, distro's are jumping through hoops to offer solutions that are ten's of thousands of pounds cheaper, yet more stable and usable, and they've _still_ only got about 10% of the market.

> Some of us feel KDE is doing fine,

No argument there

> and can stand up on its own merits,

I've already dealt with this one

> and doesn't need an overbearing government punishing
> success in the marketplace.

The government is not punishing success, in fact, under U.S. law a monopoly is not an offence (it is in most of the E.U. AFAIK). What it's punishing is the abuse of it's success. Microsoft is an unscrupulous company. It's main executives have almost certainly perjured themselves. It's been involved in numerous accountancy investigations with the SSEC - all settled out of court, and a countless series of monopoly investigations. It has openly defied previous rulings, and abused it's monopoly to crush opposition. It's shown itself incapable of responsibly and legally handling it's monopoly privilege, despite numerous trials, and so the various states and lawyers are trying to find a way to force it to act decently in the interests of the consumer first and it's competitors second.